< Back to previous page

Publication

By the public, for the public? Coping with value conflicts in the co-production of public services

Book - Dissertation

Introduction and background This first part of the title of the thesis 'By the public, for the public?', refers first to the evolution to co-production of public services, where public services are delivered for the public, with and by the public. In co-production citizen co-producers (users and/or citizens as part of the community) actively and voluntarily collaborate with professionals in producing public services, either in the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of public services. Furthermore, it refers to a gap in our understanding of the effects of co-production of public services. When citizens are co-producing public services what are the effects of co-production and who is affected by these effects (i.e., is it for the public?)? On the one hand, co-production of public services is expected to lead to positive effects: such as the better realization of public values (e.g., better inclusiveness, responsiveness, efficiency, quality of services, democratic quality of services, equity, etc.), and the co-creation of public value. On the other hand, recent studies show co-production of public services sometimes create undesired or unexpected effects, for example, a failing efficiency, inclusion, or accountability, and the co-destruction of public value (when co-production fails to deliver the expected outcomes to the public). Gaining an insight in to how these desired and undesired effects of co-production come about may help practitioners become aware of ways to better realize positive effects, and to deal with, and perhaps prevent, undesired effects. The second part of the title of the thesis 'Coping with value conflicts in the co-production of public services' refers to a second and a third gap in co-production literature. First, until recently the phenomenon of value conflicts was understudied in the field of co-production. Street-level-bureaucracy literature shows that public servants in regular service provision experience value conflicts on a daily basis, and these conflicts often do not have a straightforward answer. This thesis therefore set out to look if actors involved in the co-production also face value conflicts. Second, there is a gap in the knowledge relating to how individuals cope with various conflicts in co-production of public services. For this reason this thesis set out to study how co-producing actors deal with these value conflicts. Combining these different challenges, the thesis set out to connect the individual coping with value conflicts to the desired and undesired effects of co-production. This research project thus addresses the following research question: What is the role of individual coping with value conflicts for the desired and undesired effects of co-production? Research design and methods The research starts from an in-depth examination of the existing academic literature and develops a model for individual coping with value conflicts in multi-actor settings, such as for example co-production. This theoretical exploration provided input to explore and bring together the concepts of public values realisation, public value creation, public value conflicts and coping strategies. The research further adopts a mixed-method approach, first by conducting three qualitative case studies in three different service areas, namely, social elderly care, urban mobility planning and the temporary use of vacant spaces. These case studies help shed light on the expectations citizen co-producers and public servants hold of co-production, as well as the value conflicts they experience when trying to realize those expectations. Additionally, this research examines the coping strategies citizen co-producers and public servants follow when they experience value conflicts. Next, the research utilizes quantitative methods in order to study some of the individual characteristics that may have an influence on the coping strategies that individual co-producers adopt. The insights into experiences of conflicts and coping strategies acquired in the qualitative phase of the research design are used to design a vignette experiment and survey questionnaire to test what psychological traits influence coping behaviour. Coping with value conflicts in co-producing public services Two qualitative studies presented in chapters in 3 and 4 shows that value conflicts are part of co-productive life. Moreover, there are several indications that the co-production of public services reinforces the experience of value conflicts. Co-production therefore must not be seen as a means to solve value conflicts. The research indicates that the experience of value conflicts also arises from the characteristics inherent within co-production itself, such as the multiple expectations individuals have for co-production, the variety of co-production initiatives, the variety of roles in co-production, possible time-pressures, and interactions. The research found that co-producers apply a variety of coping strategies, such as avoidance strategies (avoiding to deal with the conflict, for example, by dropping out), escalating strategies (elevating the experienced conflict to a higher authority), trade-off strategies (focussing on the realization or creation of one of the two aspects of the value conflict) and balancing strategies (focussing on realizing both conflicting values, albeit not to their fullest extent). These coping strategies offer individual co-producers a way to deal with an otherwise paralysing situation, however, none of these strategies result in a conflict situation being completely solved. The findings suggest that each individual's coping strategy contributes to a desired or undesired result. Next, the findings suggests that the roles of co-producers, and the power they hold, also matter for coping strategies. The qualitative case studies find that just like public servants, citizen co-producers follow various coping strategies but choose an escalation strategy or an avoidance strategy more often than public servants. The relation between psychological traits and coping strategies In attempting to explain why some individuals cope according to one strategy and others according to other strategies, indications were taken from the qualitative chapters. The fifth chapter shows how variables relating to capacity at the level of the individual (such as motivation, capabilities and opportunities), the organization and the network are connected to and stimulating co-production effects, and identifies those aspects that ensure sustainable effects. The qualitative studies presented in chapter three and four, probably due to their focus on the individual, mostly identified individual characteristics acting as individual drivers for coping behaviour. For example, the third chapter suggests that citizens avoid and escalate conflicts more than public servants because of two aspects: citizens believe their ideas and concerns may not be heard (perceived impact or external efficacy), and they may lack the capacity to deal with value conflicts (self-efficacy). The data presented in the third and the fourth chapter suggest that when trust of the individual in the other (the public servant, or the citizen co-producer) is absent, individuals might be more likely to cope with the conflict by avoiding co-production and less likely to follow an escalation strategy. For this reason, the quantitative empirical chapters (chapter 6 and 7) set out to explore this relationship by questioning if these psychological traits could explain the coping strategies followed by citizen co-producers. The studies do not find statistically significant effects of self-efficacy and trust, be it generalized trust or trust in government, on the respondents' coping strategies. Chapter six finds that the situational psychological trait of external efficacy affects citizens' coping behaviour. In case of a conflict between social inclusion and service quality, external efficacy is positively related to trading-off in favour of service quality, and negatively related to a citizen's likelihood to avoid dealing with value conflicts. However, the results should not be generalized outside these studies because of the limited population (temporary users in Flanders). Still, the two quantitative studies allow to develop hypotheses for future research. For example, future research studying larger groups of citizen co-producers across a variety of sectors could check whether citizen co-producers with a higher perceived impact are less likely to cope according to an avoidance strategy, and more likely to actively cope with their experienced conflicts. Implications for research and practice In unravelling one of the underlying mechanisms of how desired and undesired effects of co-production come about, this thesis advances theoretical and empirical understandings of co-production. The study generates the following overall conclusions: co-production both enables and obstructs positive effects as it offers challenges for the realization of public values and the creation of public value. These challenges are characterized by value conflicts, making it hard for value to be created or values to be realized to their fullest potential; and individual coping strategies to deal with these value conflicts contribute to co-production effects. The threat for negative effects of co-production increases when individual coping strategies largely emphasising one value are aggregated. With these findings the research contributes to a number of literature fields, such as that of co-production, public values realization, public value creation, and coping strategies. Most importantly the research contributes to three areas in co-production literature. First, this research advances the literature on co-production motivations by showing how a variety of co-producing actors hold different expectations for co-production effects, for both public values realization in the co-production process and for public value creation as an outcome, which translate into the motivations of actors to co-produce. The study also shows how these expectations may potentially incorporate 'new' conflicts into public service co-production. Second, the research has theoretical implications for the literature on the processes of co-production, which typically looks at design principles for making co-production effective. This research identifies capacities for co-production at different levels (individual, organisation and system level) facilitating the effectiveness of achieving aims, including, for example, lasting collaborations and the creation of long-term networks, institutionalized but flexible processes, supportive legal frameworks, structural allocation of personnel and budget, and empowerment of citizens in their ability, motivation and opportunities. Additionally, a specific contribution is that this research theorizes coping with value conflicts as a variable that impacts co-production's effectiveness. Third, the research contributes to the literature on co-production effects. The studies show how individual coping strategies result, perhaps through aggregation, in effects. Additionally, the research presents a conceptual model (the Individual Coping with Value Conflicts model) that offers a framework for analyzing how individuals contribute to co-production effects. This model (chapter 2) offers a starting point for empirical analysis and testing. The findings also contribute to the public values literature in that it presents (1) a conceptual model for the realization of public values on an individual level; (2) empirical material for expectations for the public values realization of co-producing actors (not just public servants but also citizens), and (3) evidence for the persisting challenge of realizing public values, even in the co-production of public services. With regards to the public value creation literature, this research shows that also public value creation comes with conflicts for individuals and that these individuals rely on similar coping strategies to deal with conflicts between public value dimensions. More specifically it provides much needed empirical evidence on the balance between individual and social/public value creation in public service delivery. And finally, with regards to the coping strategies literature the research conceptualizes a framework for the origins and results of coping strategies not only for street level bureaucrats but for all individuals involved in co-producing public services. Additionally, the research finds that roles and responsibilities do matter for coping behaviour in similar conflict situations. For practitioners, the thesis invites actors to be open about their expectations and to invite everyone to share their expectations. Such openness enables co-producers to become aware of communalities in expectations but also of the conflicts that are likely to exist. The thesis further invites co-producing actors to discuss first, the risks of these conflicts and second, how these conflicts can possibly be coped with. Since the accountability for creating public value remains with project coordinators or public professionals, they can take on a guarding role by taking stock of which value is potentially at loss and consequently suggest the use of specific and/or plural coping strategies to prevent failure or destruction. They especially need to be realistic that high expectations for co-production to realize democratic values require safeguarding these values. This thesis therefore advises project coordinators and public professionals to allow and facilitate flexibility in co-production to experiment with coping with value conflicts, with transferring more ownership and responsibility to citizen co-producers, and with involving them in managing public value conflicts. Additionally, becoming aware of potential desired and undesired effects of co-production requires some learning for public professionals, project coordinators and citizens or users involved in co-production. A further step could be to design a toolbox including more hands-on collaboration methods for deliberating about value conflicts and how to deal with them, as well as tools for learning what the various effects are of coping with value conflicts. Practitioners could invoke this toolbox and a process of shared deliberation about coping with value conflicts in the co-production of public services.
Publication year:2021
Accessibility:Open